Aliens almost certainly exist but humans should avoid making contact, Professor Stephen Hawking has warned.

In a series for the Discovery Channel the renowned astrophysicist said it was "perfectly rational" to assume intelligent life exists elsewhere.

But he warned that aliens might simply raid Earth for resources, then move on.

"If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans," he said.

THIS IS KNEE-JERK LEFT-WING IDIOCY.

HERE'S THE TRUTH:

NATIVE AMERICANS WERE NOT LIVING IN SOME EDENIC PARADISE BEFORE THE EVIL JUDEO-CHRISTIAN WHITE MAN GOT HERE.

THE NEW WORLD WAS RIFE WITH WARS, GENOCIDE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS.

INDIANS IN NORTH AMERICA WERE WARRING ALL THE TIME - AND PRACTICED SLASH AND BURN HUNTING WHICH DESTROYED FORESTS;

THERE ARE MORE FORESTS NOW IN MANY AREAS OF THE NORTHEAST THAN WHEN THE EVIL JUDEO-CHRISTIAN WHITE MAN GOT HERE.

IN MESO-AMERICA, THE AZTECS PRACTICED HUMAN SACRIFICE ON A GENOCIDAL SCALE. FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS ESTIMATED THAT - TO CELEBRATE THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF TENOCHTITLAN - THE AZTECS SACRIFICED 50,000 PEOPLE DURING JUST ONE "CEREMONY" TO THEIR GODS.

THE CONQUISTADORS - A GROUP OF MEN NUMBERING UNDER ONE HUNDRED, THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM HOME - WERE ABLE TO CONQUER THE AZTECS AND THE OTHER EMPIRES OF MESO- AND SOUTH AMERICA LARGELY BY ENLISTING THE AID OF THE OTHER TRIBES WHO HATED THE EMPIRES AND WERE SUBJUGATED THEM.

CHRISTIANITY WAS A HUGE FORWARD STEP FOR THE SO-CALLED "NATIVE" AMERICANS. CHRISTIANITY WAS PROGRESS.

THE LEFT IS FOND OF ACCUSING WESTERN CIVILIZATION FOR ALL THE ILLS IN THE THIRD WORLD, BUT IT IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE.

IN THE NEW WORLD THE "NATIVE" EMPIRES WERE WORSE.

IN AFRICA, TRIBAL WARS AND MUSLIM VERSUS TRIBAL WARS WERE WORSE.

"NATIVE" CULTURES OF THE THIRD WORLD HAD NO SCIENCE, NO DECENT MEDICINE, NO RULE OF LAW, NO MAGNA CARTA, NO TEN COMMANDMENTS. AND SO ON.

ALL SO CALLED "NATIVE" AMERICANS AND NATIVE AFRICANS - AND EVEN INDIANS FROM THE REAL INDIA - ARE BETTER OFF FOR HAVING BEEN COLONIZED BY THE WEST.

Update #2: A lot of linkage. Thanks! Many are misconstruing my argument. I am attacking Hawking's analogy. And in a way, the whole idea of experts from one field posing as experts in others fields. I have no idea what might happen if aliens came here. I hope they are not leftists. If they are truly advanced, then they are probably not!

21 comments:

Do notice that nothing of what you say contradicts what he said. Even saying it in all caps fails to sufficiently refute the point he was making. Most of it, in fact, is completely unrelated.

(Since you don't understand the above, let me clarify: his point was that first contact between isolated cultures on Earth has resulted in violence and oppression, so it's reasonable to assume the same would result from contact between Earth and extraterrestrial cultures - and this time, all Earth would be on the less-developed side of the technology imbalance, and so likely to lose out in such a conflict. The fact that there was conflict between local cultures is irrelevant: his point had to do with the results of contact between cultures that had not previously been in conflict. Claiming that conflict between local cultures was worse than conflict between alien cultures is entirely beside the point: he was not making a comparison of levels of violence, simply predicting that there would *be* violence.)

A relevant response to his point might have been an attempt to refute the claim that alien cultures are likely to come into conflict; instead you have reiterated his factual premise and merely argued that there are other types of conflict that are worse, which, sadly, does not address his point and does rather raise the question of what we are to think of you if Hawking is, as you say, an idiot for believing things that you agree are true.

I presume, however, that you will be much comforted by your peculiar line of reasoning after Earth is colonized from space, since you seem to find that such a pleasant prospect, and you do not disagree with Hawking as to the likely result.

his point was that first contact between isolated cultures on Earth has resulted in violence and oppression,

NOT TRUE.

so it's reasonable to assume the same would result from contact between Earth and extraterrestrial cultures

ERGO NOT TRUE

- and this time, all Earth would be on the less-developed side of the technology imbalance, and so likely to lose out in such a conflict.

MOST TECH SAVVY DON;T ALWAYS WIN; SEE VEETNOM.

The fact that there was conflict between local cultures is irrelevant:

I AGREE.

his point had to do with the results of contact between cultures that had not previously been in conflict.

WRONG - IT DID; THAT'S HE MAIN POINT.

Claiming that conflict between local cultures was worse than conflict between alien cultures is entirely beside the point: he was not making a comparison of levels of violence, simply predicting that there would *be* violence.)

NONSENSE. UNINTELLIGIBLE.

A relevant response to his point might have been an attempt to refute the claim that alien cultures are likely to come into conflict; instead you have reiterated his factual premise and merely argued that there are other types of conflict that are worse, which, sadly, does not address his point and does rather raise the question of what we are to think of you if Hawking is, as you say, an idiot for believing things that you agree are true.

NO. I NOTED HIS EXAMPLE IS PROPAGANDA. ONLY IDIOTS BELIEVE PROPAGANDA; ONLY LEFT-WING IDIOTS WHO SPOUT IT . DUPES. IDIOTS. LIKE HAWKING. LIKE CHOMSKY - ANTHER DICKHEAD WHO SPOUTS LEFTWING BULLSHIT ABOUT THINGS HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT. CHOMSKY SHOULD STICK TO LINGUISTICS AND HAWKING TO PHYSICS.

BTW; DID YOU KNOW THAT MOST OF WHAT HAWKING IS FAMOUS FOR TURNED OUT TO BE WRONG?

I presume, however, that you will be much comforted by your peculiar line of reasoning after Earth is colonized from space, since you seem to find that such a pleasant prospect, and you do not disagree with Hawking as to the likely result.

Right, idiot, which is why he's regarded with sincere respect from physicists and astronomers. It is unlikely that you are capable of remotely comprehending everything he understands about our world. You're wrong about Hawkins, you're wrong about your politics, you're just wrong.

"It is unlikely that you are capable of remotely comprehending everything he understands about our world."

i can understand that he was WRONG about black holes and admitted it.

AND: as i posted above - you fucking moron: hawking should stick to commenting on shit he is an expert on - LIKE PHYSICS - and not comment on crap he is merely aping leftist propaganda on - like meso-american colonial history, something i am a bit of an expert on, you fucking shitforbrainsshithead.

i am right ion the facts; i provided links for my claims and argument.

Get this commie turd. The crip isn't saying that conflict is bad or that earthlings are bad or that Red Indian are good. He isn't saying that all encounters between savages and civilized folks end badly he is saying that the specific encounter between Columbus and his bunch of kiddie loving pederast Catholics ended badly for the savages.

Therefore he hypothesizes that it might end badly for humans if we met some alien race more powerful than us.

i am not saying aliens are gonna be sweet jesus and save us and only leftist morons would construe my argument that way.

i am saying that hawking used a bad analogy and should stick to commenting to things he;s an expert in - like physics - which he's famous for despite the fact that he was wrong about one of the two things he's most famous for.

Europe at that time was no more or less savage than the savages they encountered they just wore knee britches & silks rather than feathers & animal skins. Yes the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice, as opposed to the various European empires that just warred on endlessly over land over succession over religion, burning heretics and witches. Remember later Isabel & Ferdinand would force the Jews and Moors of Spain to convert, leave or die. This is not propaganda this is history.

Were you trying to argue thing turned out well for the natives post-Columbus? How many Carib natives are left now? How many were left say 100 years after Columbus' visit? It's not that the Europeans are evil and intended to wipe them out, it's not that we didn't bring better technology and eventually better government (European Monarchs of the period were no walk in the Park). It's more that the Caribs were more or less steam rolled by a culture with superior technology. Was that intended? Unlikely.

Maybe the aliens will bring us wonderful technology and advances we can only dream of, and maybe they'll bring a new pathogen that will wipe us out. In our history, things didn't generally work out well for less advanced cultures. That's just the breaks, the stronger prevail, their languages and social customs displace the those of the weaker. But we're just the big frog in a very small pond here on Earth. Hawking's analogy holds. Seems like it pushed your buttons and you launched into an irrelevant bold and caps diatribe.

Oh, please don't bother replying with what you believe to be your scathing wit. I won't see it. This isn't a place that engages in intelligent conversation, I won't be back. Don't take it personally there aren't many places that really do encourage intelligent conversation. It always seems to devolve into screaming childishness.

Hawking was an idiot to raise this point, and you didn't need to get so defensive about it. It has nothing to do with Europeans=bad, Native Americans=good. The Iroquois destroyed the Mahicans and Hurons as soon as they got their hands on firearms. Most of the tribes in Mexico thought the Aztecs got what was coming to them. (One historian says the Aztecs and the Spanish deserved each other.) "Savage" is not an objective term, just an expression of taste: The Aztecs thought human sacrifice was how you kept the rain falling, and they were appalled at the Spaniards' fondness for burning people at the stake. And if you think the jungles of the Amazon = Carib or Meso-American cultures, you really need to go back to school.

Current estimates are that the 16th-century native population of the Americas fell by 90% in the century after Cortes thanks to slavery, massacres, and European diseases like smallpox and measles. Whether the descendants of the survivors are better off is an interesting point. The English colonists found forests growing from the Appalachians to the Mississippi, where Hernando de Soto had found (and destroyed) agricultural kingdoms. (New England's current forests grew back after later farmers abandoned their stony farms.)

In my book Writing Science Fiction and Fantasy (about to go into its third edition), I make the point that alien-invasion stories are almost always recapitulations of the European encounter with the rest of the world 500 years ago. This is not original with me, so Hawking is even less original in his observation. But I also point out that we might not even recognize when we'd been invaded, any more than the ants in Peru noticed that Pizarro had conquered the Incas.

In another of my books, Writing for the Web (now in its fourth edition), I suggest that writing web text in all caps is counter-productive: It's hard enough to read text on a screen, and putting it in all caps just makes it harder. All it tells us, in your case, is that you're a hostile, ignorant and defensive person who's missing most of the fun in life.

That the Amerindians were, in fact, human, and guilty of many of the same evils as the rest of humanity is well understood by anyone who thinks about it, much less bothers to study. But none of that changes the fact that upon being "discovered," they lost their lands and control over resources. In many cases, cultures were eliminated; in others, vastly altered. Some of this resulted from disease, of course, but their were very deliberate policies on the part of all the European empires to either exploit or eliminate these people. Despite your clear cultural chauvinism, maybe you could grasp that being discovered by an alien culture with superior technology might not work out for us too well? That was Mr. Hawking's point, not whatever liberal straw-man you've decided to rail against.

I'D BETCHYA A MILLION BUCK ALL THE SHITHEAD LEFT-WING DUPES WHO THINK THAT THE SO-CALLED "NATIVE" AMERICANS WERE BETTER OFF UNDER THE LIKES OF THE AZTECS WOULD SAY THAT THE IRAQIS WERE BETTER OFF UNDER SADDAM.

THESE LEFT-WING POSTMODERNIST SCUM ARE ANTI-WEST.

THEY ARE WRONG.

DUPES. DOPES.

MORAL AND CULTURAL RELATIVISTS.

I RECOMMEND THEY ALL MOVE IN WITH A TRIBE IN THE DEEP DARK NON-WESTERN JUNGLES OF THE AMAZON OR NEW GUINEA WITH THE CANNIBALS. AND SEE HOW THEY LIKE IT.

So if Europeans encountering native Americans was a good thing for the native Americans what exactly happened to them all. Considering historical estimates place native American populations in what would eventually become the continental US at around 18 million in 1492, down to about 250,000 in 1902, then obviously the encounter with the Judeo-Christian culture was not so good for the native American population. As Hawkings stated, you could extrapolate that to the expansion anywhere where the native population is less technologically advanced than the visiting one. It's really not left or right, it's just a historical observation, West Africa, South America, South Africa, Australia and so on and so forth.

Is it possible Hawking was just talking about smallpox? Even assuming the truth of everything you say, didn't smallpox kill enough of the local population to make all of the advances you cite just not worth it? And couldn't a very similar scenario develop from an alien arrival on Earth - i.e., bungling conquerors meaning more or less no harm bring us a new system of relatively less war and crime and relatively better technology and comforts, but at the same time accidentally wipe out 80% of our population by introducing their alien microbes?